This appears to me to be about as political as it can get in the Martial Arts world. The gist of it is whether SEALs would be better served with MMA style training, or the Close Quarters Defense training that had been done.

"The reasons are obvious. Martial arts are theoretical. Mixed martial arts are real."

This...this right here gets me. This too, is one person's opinion. MA bashing has to stop because it's both unfair and unrealistic. Not because it's true, because it's not, but treasured methodologies and ideologies are trampled on without understanding...deep understanding.

Yeah, if the door knob won't open the door when turned, than the door knob must be broken...right?!...nothing else?!...right?!

That quote is quite meaningless and empty. It does not at all sound like it comes from a knowledgeable person. Saying that martial arts are theoretical and MMA(a sport) is real is equivalent to comparing children playing with water-pistols and a game of paintball.

Neither is more real than the other, both occur in a controlled-rule bound environment and have nothing to do with what a real live fire fight in the chaos of noise, blood and death that is war.

The only combat that is real is the real thing. Aside from all of this, the real reason a modern military uses MMA or similar type training has nothing to do with battle. It is no secret and has been clearly explained by the instructors themselves.

That quote is quite meaningless and empty. It does not at all sound like it comes from a knowledgeable person. Saying that martial arts are theoretical and MMA(a sport) is real is equivalent to comparing children playing with water-pistols and a game of paintball.

Neither is more real than the other, both occur in a controlled-rule bound environment and have nothing to do with what a real live fire fight in the chaos of noise, blood and death that is war.

The only combat that is real is the real thing. Aside from all of this, the real reason a modern military uses MMA or similar type training has nothing to do with battle. It is no secret and has been clearly explained by the instructors themselves.

Here's the thing. We can all talk about what "should" a specific unit use, but at the end of the day, those individuals within that unit are the best suited to tell us. They should make the determining factors as to what meets their needs and operational parameters.

It's easy for martial artist to get caught up in the theory of what works better, but it's to the individuals doing the job to make a reality based call on the best options for them.

I hear this all the time in LE circles and SWAT. Several private based instructors have approached us over the years with this is better pitches. Sometimes the tactics they offer are just awful for anyone. Sometimes, they are great....but don't meet our use of force standards. Sometimes, it works out and we adopt certain tactics.

Even within the afore mentioned communities, we vary tactics to a degree based on assignment. There are certain things that the team needs that routine patrol does not. So we design training and get instructors based on those needs.

I had a recent discussion with a JKD instructor on what he thought we should be training in. After talking it thru with him, it was clear that if we deployed the tactics he was advocating for SD, we'd end up violating all sorts of case law and probably the 4th or 8th or both Amendments. Now, his tactics would be SOLID for a female defending herself in a parking lot, but it's a difference in need, application an purpose. On a side note, Krav can suffer from this.

Here's the thing. We can all talk about what "should" a specific unit use, but at the end of the day, those individuals within that unit are the best suited to tell us. They should make the determining factors as to what meets their needs and operational parameters.

It's easy for martial artist to get caught up in the theory of what works better, but it's to the individuals doing the job to make a reality based call on the best options for them.

I hear this all the time in LE circles and SWAT. Several private based instructors have approached us over the years with this is better pitches. Sometimes the tactics they offer are just awful for anyone. Sometimes, they are great....but don't meet our use of force standards. Sometimes, it works out and we adopt certain tactics.

Even within the afore mentioned communities, we vary tactics to a degree based on assignment. There are certain things that the team needs that routine patrol does not. So we design training and get instructors based on those needs.

I had a recent discussion with a JKD instructor on what he thought we should be training in. After talking it thru with him, it was clear that if we deployed the tactics he was advocating for SD, we'd end up violating all sorts of case law and probably the 4th or 8th or both Amendments. Now, his tactics would be SOLID for a female defending herself in a parking lot, but it's a difference in need, application an purpose. On a side note, Krav can suffer from this.

So, looking at what will drive the need is a first step in deciding what to use. BUT it should be the operational individuals who decide on a unit by unit level on what direction they go.

Here's the thing. We can all talk about what "should" a specific unit use, but at the end of the day, those individuals within that unit are the best suited to tell us. They should make the determining factors as to what meets their needs and operational parameters.

It's easy for martial artist to get caught up in the theory of what works better, but it's to the individuals doing the job to make a reality based call on the best options for them.

I hear this all the time in LE circles and SWAT. Several private based instructors have approached us over the years with this is better pitches. Sometimes the tactics they offer are just awful for anyone. Sometimes, they are great....but don't meet our use of force standards. Sometimes, it works out and we adopt certain tactics.

Even within the afore mentioned communities, we vary tactics to a degree based on assignment. There are certain things that the team needs that routine patrol does not. So we design training and get instructors based on those needs.

I had a recent discussion with a JKD instructor on what he thought we should be training in. After talking it thru with him, it was clear that if we deployed the tactics he was advocating for SD, we'd end up violating all sorts of case law and probably the 4th or 8th or both Amendments. Now, his tactics would be SOLID for a female defending herself in a parking lot, but it's a difference in need, application an purpose. On a side note, Krav can suffer from this.

So, looking at what will drive the need is a first step in deciding what to use. BUT it should be the operational individuals who decide on a unit by unit level on what direction they go.

How does/did the material presented by the JKD instructor potentially violate the 8th Amendment? From what I remember the 8th Amendment basically covers areas like excessive bail or fines and the subject of cruel and unusual punishment. Does the "cruel and unusual punishment" in the 8th Amendment apply to "excessive force" when subduing a suspect?

Here's the thing. We can all talk about what "should" a specific unit use, but at the end of the day, those individuals within that unit are the best suited to tell us. They should make the determining factors as to what meets their needs and operational parameters.

It's easy for martial artist to get caught up in the theory of what works better, but it's to the individuals doing the job to make a reality based call on the best options for them.

I hear this all the time in LE circles and SWAT. Several private based instructors have approached us over the years with this is better pitches. Sometimes the tactics they offer are just awful for anyone. Sometimes, they are great....but don't meet our use of force standards. Sometimes, it works out and we adopt certain tactics.

Even within the afore mentioned communities, we vary tactics to a degree based on assignment. There are certain things that the team needs that routine patrol does not. So we design training and get instructors based on those needs.

I had a recent discussion with a JKD instructor on what he thought we should be training in. After talking it thru with him, it was clear that if we deployed the tactics he was advocating for SD, we'd end up violating all sorts of case law and probably the 4th or 8th or both Amendments. Now, his tactics would be SOLID for a female defending herself in a parking lot, but it's a difference in need, application an purpose. On a side note, Krav can suffer from this.

So, looking at what will drive the need is a first step in deciding what to use. BUT it should be the operational individuals who decide on a unit by unit level on what direction they go.

How does/did the material presented by the JKD instructor potentially violate the 8th Amendment? From what I remember the 8th Amendment basically covers areas like excessive bail or fines and the subject of cruel and unusual punishment. Does the "cruel and unusual punishment" in the 8th Amendment apply to "excessive force" when subduing a suspect?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it springs to mind here. If the SEALs had been using CQD for a number of years without issue, then why change it? Because some bureaucrat tells them that what they are doing is of no use but, in reality he's awarding top $ contracts to his buddies? It all sounds a bit fishy to me. The safety of the troops has to take priority over EVERYTHING.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it springs to mind here. If the SEALs had been using CQD for a number of years without issue, then why change it? Because some bureaucrat tells them that what they are doing is of no use but, in reality he's awarding top $ contracts to his buddies? It all sounds a bit fishy to me. The safety of the troops has to take priority over EVERYTHING.

Mo.

A cousin of mine lives over in VA. Beach and until recently getting married had a USN SEAL for a roommate. During a couple of different occasions I had the opportunity to speak with him about military combatives. What he told me was about the same as I heard from various family members that have also served in different Special Forces groups and VASTLY different than how the situation with Spec. Ops. and combatives are usually presented.

First, anyone that I have ever spoken to who actually is/was in Spec. Ops. maintains that empty-hand combatives are rarely used and somewhat a lower priority. The basic premise being they use guns and if their weapon fails or is empty, then another operator will shoot the bad guy. Only under extreme circumstances would they ever resort to using empty hand combatives.

Second, another constant I was told is that all of what people here about Spec. Ops. and combatives is largely nonsense. They often hire contractors for teaching combatives, yet there's no "set" way or particular method they employ. Often during the course of their combatives training, they are exposed to any number of different combative programs and use whatever material from them which seems feasible. In other words, there's no such thing as "the official style" of ANY Spec. Op. group, as over time they learn all kinds of different things.

Third, what the Spec. Ops. personnel actually do for a living isn't often relevant to civilian everyday life. Their choices in a sidearm, combatives program, etc. reflect their needs and not ours. Each of the different people I've spoken to clearly had different, opposing views concerning what they preferred, much less what seemed ideal outside their profession.

Does it really make any difference what kind of weapons and combatives they use? Considering their jobs are very different than our everyday lives, I wonder if people read too much into what Spec. Ops. does?